Transcription

1 The Exploratory Advanced Research Program Making Driving Simulators More Useful for Behavioral Research Simulator Characteristics Comparison and Model-Based Transformation SUMMARY REPORT a

2 Notice This document is disseminated in the interest of information exchange under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade and manufacturers names appear in this report only because they are essential to the object of the document. Quality Assurance Statement The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high-quality information to serve government, industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public understanding. Standards and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its information. FHWA periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to ensure continuous quality improvement. Cover images show simulated roadway geometry developed by the University of Iowa (left), the National Advanced Driving Simulator (center), and the Federal Highway Administration s motion-base driving simulator (right). The University of Iowa b

3 Technical Report Documentation Page i

4 ii

5 Executive Summary Highway and traffic engineers face considerable challenges in creating designs that are consistent with drivers capabilities and expectations; however, failing to consider driver behavior can cost lives and millions of dollars if roadways require revision after they are built. The use of driving simulators to guide designs or to evaluate design choices is a promising approach, but discrepant results across studies undermine the utility of these findings. This is particularly true when simulator results fail to match on-road data. One potential source of this mismatch is when the simulator does not have the appropriate fidelity, or realism, to address the design issue of interest. Appropriate simulator fidelity, which includes the simulator hardware and software as well as the modeling of the virtual environment, is an important component of obtaining data useful for highway design. For example, one could envision a staged approach to simulator fidelity, similar to that used in software prototyping, in which a low-fidelity desktop simulator could be used for rendering scene and roadway elements, whereas a high-fidelity simulator could be used for speed estimates. Choosing the appropriate level of simulator fidelity to address a particular design issue represents a critical challenge. The aim of this project was to address this challenge and to help engineers identify the appropriate simulator platform for particular design questions, as well as to identify a mathematical transformation that can equate simulator data to real-world outcomes. In particular, the research team identified highway design needs and matched them to specific simulator characteristics to facilitate the appropriate choice of simulator for a particular design problem. As part of this research, the research team developed and demonstrated a proof of concept approach to characterizing simulator fidelity to allow for comparison between simulators and the real world. The research team also developed a driving environment that contained virtual recreations of two roundabouts from Maryland and Arizona, as well as a gateway from a rural road to a small town in Iowa. The researchers manipulated this virtual environment to vary the visual complexity of the driving environment and tested it on four simulator platforms, three of which were tested with and without motion. They compared driver judgment of fidelity and performance across the simulator platforms. No consistent effect of motion was found, but a moderate effect of visual complexity was apparent in the data. Performance data showed good relative and absolute matches to on-road speed data. The researchers used the data to develop linear regression and process models that could be used to transform the simulator data to match the on-road data. These models will provide the foundation for future work that will allow designers to transform results for simulator studies to make design decisions and to predict changes in driver behavior and performance on the basis of evaluations conducted on simulators. For example, these models can relate speed through a roundabout observed in a simulator to speed that is likely to be observed on the road. Following completion of this project, additional work is necessary to improve and refine the tools developed so far. One area that requires refinement is the characterization of simulators. This is because those characteristics that matter most are not always the easiest to measure. Additional work iii

6 is needed to define the critical measures that differentiate simulator fidelity related to roadway design. Additional work is also needed to characterize what constitutes a typical vehicle and how much variability exists among vehicles on critical measures. These data could then be used to enhance the psychophysical scaling required to determine when a simulator is noticeably different from a typical vehicle and the extent to which different vehicle types influence highway design decisions. These differences must also be investigated to determine whether future studies need to include not only a range of drivers, but also a range of vehicle types. This research would also be enhanced through its application to real-world design problems to provide the opportunity for continued evaluation and refinement. For example, use of a simulator to support a State Department of Transportation project, from inception to evaluation, would enable a thorough evaluation of the utility of the simulator in all phases of the design process. Through final evaluation of the real-world design implementation, the predictions of the simulator across a broader range of performance metrics could be assessed, and model refinements could be made. Another promising line of research would be to draw on naturalistic data to identify critical design issues and scenarios that can be further examined through simulator studies. These studies would provide additional data to improve the transformations of simulator to real-world data. A further opportunity would be to examine the minimum fidelity of simulator needed at each phase of the design process and across design problems. If lower fidelity simulators can be used to successfully address design decisions, then their use may be opened up to a broader group of highway designers who cannot necessarily afford more expensive simulation platforms. The model-based transformations used in this study highlight the promise of driver modeling in helping to address highway design decisions. Ongoing projects continue to explore the use of driver models to enhance driver safety through a systematic evaluation of design options; however, this requires a reliable and validated model of the driver. Additional work along these lines is therefore needed, particularly as it relates to roadway geometry and visual complexity. These theorybased models can be used to accumulate an understanding of simulators and driver behavior related to a set of stimuli. A comprehensive approach that integrates a driver model with the Interactive Highway Safety Design Model would provide benefits to highway designers as an efficient way of using previous data to assess new design decisions. iv

8 List of Figures Figure 1. The National Advanced Driving Simulator motion-base driving simulator. 4 Figure 2. The Federal Highway Administration motion-base driving simulator. 4 Figure 3. The Western Transportation Institute Simulator. 5 Figure 4. The National Advanced Driving Simulator minisim Simulator. 5 Figure 5. Example of geometric matching of real (top) and simulated (bottom) roadway geometry of a gateway in Iowa. 6 Figure 6. An overview and screen image of the practice driving route. 7 Figure 7. Layout of the first Arizona roundabout. 9 Figure 8. Layout curvature data of the first Arizona roundabout. (The width of the line in the center graph corresponds to the radius of curvature shown in the bottom graph.) 9 Figure 9. Layout of the first Maryland roundabout. 9 Figure 10. Layout curvature data of the first Maryland roundabout. (The width of the line in the center graph corresponds to the radius of curvature shown in the bottom graph.) 9 List of Acronyms and Abbreviations EAR Exploratory Advanced Research FHWA Federal Highway Administration NADS National Advanced Driving Simulator WTI Western Transportation Institute vi

9 Introduction This report summarizes the results of a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Exploratory Advanced Research (EAR) Program-funded research project that explored the challenges of using driving simulators to guide roadway designs and evaluate design choices. The aim of this project was to help engineers identify the appropriate simulator platform for particular design questions, as well as to identify a mathematical transformation that can equate simulator data to real-world outcomes. Highway and traffic engineers face considerable challenges in creating designs that are consistent with drivers capabilities, expectations, and limits. 1 Drivers often behave in complex and counterintuitive ways, and failing to consider driver behavior can cost lives and millions of dollars if roadways require revision after they are built. 2,3 Driving simulators provide a promising approach to addressing this challenge because they make it possible to visualize new roadway designs as well as safely expose drivers to demanding situations without the expense of fully implementing the design. 4 Driving simulators also provide a means of conveying road design concepts to stakeholders through visualization and have the potential to be an important part of policy decisions and public acceptance. 5,6 Improving Understanding There have been many recent advances in simulation technology, which has led to a wide range of driving simulators available to researchers. These simulators all offer different levels of realism, known as fidelity, in addition to varying levels of complexity and usage costs. Such diversity makes it difficult for researchers to know which simulator is appropriate to address a given design question. This uncertainty is thought to be one reason why simulators have not been more widely used by highway and traffic engineers. 7 An improved understanding of the varying characteristics of simulators and how well they might reproduce driver behavior would make driving simulators far more useful for engineers. The ideal situation would be for simulator characteristics to exactly match actual cars and roadways, but this is beyond the capabilities of even the most advanced simulators at this time. Instead, the goal is to minimize the differences between the physical characteristics of the simulator and the roadway and therefore ultimately minimize the difference between behavior observed in the simulator and out on the road. 1

10 Understanding Physical and Behavioral Fidelity In addition to physical differences, there are several other factors known to affect driver behavior that can prove difficult or impossible to simulate, including a driver s motivation for the trip or the real-world consequences of a crash. Matching the physical features of the simulator to the roadway experience, known as physical fidelity, is therefore just one condition that must be replicated to ensure that driver behavior in the simulator matches behavior observed on the road. 8 Until now, the driving simulator community has mostly focused on gross measures of physical fidelity, such as high or low fidelity. The next step, and broader research goal, is to match the behavior of drivers in the simulator with behavior on the road, known as behavioral fidelity. 4 This requires sufficient realism of simulator controls and vehicle-handling characteristics to match actual vehicle performance. 9 The goal is for behavior in the simulator to match behavior on the road accurately enough to support design decisions. Simulator fidelity is further complicated by the fact that physical and behavioral fidelity are related to each other, in that imperfect physical fidelity will lead to imperfect behavioral fidelity. 8 Despite this, imperfect fidelity is still often sufficient to support roadway design decisions. For example, a simulator might fail to accurately replicate the cues required to guide behavior, possibly leading drivers to drive faster than they would on the actual road. 10,11 Drivers, however, rely on multiple interchangeable cues to guide behavior and can substitute one set of cues for another. 12,13 This means that two different simulators might still produce similar behavior results because drivers can adapt and use the available cues within each simulator. 14,15 Simulator fidelity is further influenced by the level of information a simulator might provide for one task compared with another. A simulator might offer a high level of realism, or fidelity, for one set of tasks but only a medium level of realism for another. For example, a simulator may offer highly accurate renderings of road signs for a sign-reading task yet would be classed as a low-fidelity simulator for driving that involves 90-degree turns because it fails to provide a preview of the road on which drivers rely during the turns. 4 Comparing Simulators and Scenarios During this project, the research team explored task-dependent fidelity and examined the difference between physical and behavioral fidelity. The following summary compares behavior across four simulator platforms with four different configurations of motion base and visual complexity. The simulators were used to analyze a total of six roadway scenarios among them, comprised of four roundabouts and two gateways. This summary includes a description of the different driving simulators used in the project, a description of physical fidelity in terms of the cues drivers use for vehicle control, an assessment of the behavioral fidelity of these simulators, and an overview of a model developed as part of the project to relate simulator behavioral data collected in a driving simulator to data collected on the road. 2

11 Simulators and Scenarios

12 Physical Fidelity Physical fidelity relates to the degree to which the simulator replicates the physical properties of the driving situation, unlike behavioral fidelity, which is associated with the simulators ability to replicate behavior observed in the world. This study s research team examined four simulators representing a broad range of simulation capability and fidelity and measured characteristics for each. Simulators included in the study were the National Advanced Driving Simulator (NADS), the FHWA Highway Driving Simulator, the Western Transportation Institute (WTI) Simulator, and the NADS minisim. Study Simulators The following section provides a brief overview of each of the four simulators used in this study. National Advanced Driving Simulator The NADS used a 1998 Chevrolet Malibu cab mounted on a motion base with 13 degrees of freedom, as shown in figure 1. Accelerator and brake pedals used software-controlled electrical motors to provide feedback. The simulator has a 360-degree visual display system consisting of eight projectors that project visual imagery inside the dome, and scenery is updated at 60 Hz. The NADS features the ability to swap among several types of vehicle cabs. Federal Highway Administration Highway Driving Simulator The FHWA Highway Driving Simulator, shown in figure 2, is composed of a full 1998 Saturn vehicle cab mounted on a motion base with 3 degrees of freedom. The FHWA simulator has a 240-degree visual display system consisting of five projectors that project onto a cylindrical screen that is 2.7 m (9 ft) tall. All scenery is updated at 60 Hz. Western Transportation Institute Simulator The WTI simulator, shown in figure 3, consisted of a 2009 Chevrolet Impala sedan mounted on a motion platform with 6 degrees of freedom. The WTI simulator has a 240-degree forward-field-ofview system augmented by a 60-degree rear-view display system, consisting of five projectors and a curved screen in front of the driver and a single projector and a flat screen behind the driver. Sideview mirrors with digital screens also portrayed the scenarios for a total of eight visual channels. National Advanced Driving Simulator minisim Simulator The NADS minisim, shown in figure 4, is a portable, lower cost simulator that runs software similar to the NADS simulator. The minisim has no motion base and, for this study, featured a quarter-cab configuration with a seat and steering wheel from an The University of Iowa The University of Iowa Figure 1. The National Advanced Driving Simulator motion-base driving simulator. Figure 2. The Federal Highway Administration motion-base driving simulator. 4

13 The University of Iowa The University of Iowa Figure 3. The Western Transportation Institute Simulator. actual vehicle. It has three flat-panel plasma displays and projects the image of a rear-view mirror on the center plasma display. Supporting a Realistic Driving Simulator Simulators are often characterized by a set of features that describe their hardware components, including driving controls, screens, resolution, and mirrors. The hardware configuration is critical for conveying information to the driver, such as speed and curve geometry and gas and brake pedal force; however, although hardware is a necessary condition for high behavioral fidelity, it is not sufficient on its own. For a driving simulator to accurately convey the driving environment, it must depend on hardware and software. In fact, software is often more important than is hardware because it is the software controlling what is presented to the driver. Working together, the hardware and software generate signals for the driver and influence how they perceive the environment and control the state of the vehicle relative to the environment. There are three key requirements for supporting a realistic driving simulator: (1) perception of distances, speed, and time to reach relevant objects in the real world; (2) control of the car s speed and direction through control inputs; and (3) vehicle response to the control inputs. 12,16,17 The ability to identify and measure simulator characteristics in relation to these requirements enables researchers to define important differences between simulators, even if their hardware specifications are identical. In addition to taking a sample of measurements to quantify the physical fidelity of the driving Figure 4. The National Advanced Driving Simulator minisim Simulator. simulators used in this study, the research team aimed to relate each simulator characteristic to what drivers experience on the road to assess how characteristics might affect behavioral fidelity. Measuring Levels of Realism Following data collection and assessment of simulator characteristics, the NADS and WTI simulators showed the highest level of physical fidelity; however, study results indicated that no single metric can serve as a proxy for overall simulator fidelity. In fact, the broad concept of overall level of fidelity is in fact misleading and should instead be addressed in a multidimensional manner. Several issues must be addressed before this multidimensional approach is applied more broadly. For example, cars differ substantially across most of the simulator characteristics measured. It is therefore important to identify which differences are important and which are not. Drivers were also shown to easily adapt to a wide range of vehicle characteristics, including maximum acceleration and deceleration, steering inputs, pedal feel, and visual contrast. Even though a driver might perceive differences between a simulator and the car on the road, the difference might not influence driver behavior but may still result in differences in workload and driver strategies in obtaining the same driving performance. Following analysis of various metrics of physical fidelity, further research is needed to quantify the variation of simulator characteristics, the degree to which drivers can adapt to different vehicle simulator characteristics, and the degree to which these characteristics influence behavior, driving strategies, and operator workload. 5

14 Behavioral Fidelity Behavioral fidelity refers to the simulators ability to replicate driver behavior observed in the real world and is considered the ultimate measure of simulator fidelity. Researchers for this project collected simulator-based data and on-road data to describe behavioral fidelity for each of the four simulators used in the study. They collected data both with and without the simulators motion base engaged and with and without a more complex visual scene. Data Collection The analysis involved 167 participants ranging in age from 25 to 45 years. Forty-eight people each participated in the WTI, FHWA, and NADS simulators, and 23 people participated in the minisim. The simulators operated on three different software platforms, but all used the same scenarios. Scenarios were used that involved two types of road segments, roundabout and gateway. The term gateway refers to a transition from a rural road into a town. In this study, the gateway was designed to achieve a 40-km/h (25-mi/h) speed limit on a twolane suburban roadway in Iowa by using converging pavement markings, narrow lane markings, and speed advisories, as shown in figure 5. The roundabout scenarios were located on a rural two-lane arterial highway adjacent to the overpass of a major four-lane highway in Maryland, and a sequence of two roundabouts located on a rural two-lane roadway connected with a two-lane frontage road adjacent to an interstate highway in Arizona. 18,19 The research team selected these roadway elements based on discussions they had with FHWA about the potential application of driving simulators to investigate design issues. 7 The researchers selected real-world examples of each road segment based on the availability of spot-speed data (i.e., the instantaneous speeds of vehicles at specific spots of the roadway) from published reports, and they based the virtual environment reproductions on the engineering schematics available for each site. The goal of these reproductions was to duplicate the road segment geometry and road features visible to the driver that were important to navigating the road segment; however, implementing identical scenarios on four different simulator platforms presented unique challenges and required a significant amount of fine tuning. A lack of established standards for road networks and dynamic element scripts was identified as a key impediment to sharing data on the driving environments across simulators as an efficient and smooth process. The University of Iowa Figure 5. Example of geometric matching of real (top) and simulated (bottom) roadway geometry of a gateway in Iowa. 6

15 The researchers used the same general procedure to govern data collection at each simulator facility, although minor variations were introduced depending on the logistical and operating requirements of each site. They used existing databases and local advertisements to recruit participants, who were initially contacted and verbally screened for eligibility and motion sickness before moving forward. Participants initially conducted a practice drive in the simulator to familiarize themselves with the operation of the simulator vehicle and experience of driving within the virtual environment, as shown in figure 6. Participants then drove the main route twice with varying levels of visual complexity and road segment orders. Simulator Evaluation Each participant then completed a simulator realism survey to evaluate the overall feel, braking response, and visual realism of the simulator. These components formed the three dimensions of subjective simulator fidelity, and the results showed that the simulators differ considerably over these three dimensions of simulator realism. The NADS simulator, with the advanced motion base on, had the highest reported realism of overall feel. The FHWA simulator represented the lowest realism of overall feel; however, this simulator did provide the highest perceived realism for being able to read the signs and see the road. This was attributed to the simulator being specifically developed to offer visual properties to support research for road and signage design. Drivers felt best able to brake and stop with NADS while having the motion on and with the WTI while having the motion off. This part of the study showed that no simulator configuration dominates the other in terms of perceived realism. In summary, the participants judged that the NADS is the most realistic simulator overall, the FHWA simulator best supports drivers ability to read signs, and the WTI simulator provides the best braking feel. Moreover, the effect of the motion base was shown to be relatively small and can even have a negative impact on realism. Influencing Driver Behavior As part of this research project, the research team analyzed the effects of simulator, motion, and visual complexity on driver behavior. The effect of motion failed to reach statistical significance and had little impact; however, visual complexity had a substantial influence on behavior. In some cases, particularly for drivers in the minisim in the Iowa gateway, it led to an approximately 8-km/h (5-mi/h) speed reduction. In addition, drivers of the minisim on the Maryland roundabout were traveling almost 16-km/h (10-mi/h) faster than were drivers in the other simulators. In most other cases, the influence of visual complexity was modest, so the substantial simulator differences between the minisim and the other simulators is thought to have contributed to this speed difference. In general, the collected data for the mean speed of drivers in the simulators relative to the mean speed observed on the road was similar. Drivers in the WTI simulator drove closest to real-world speeds at low speeds, whereas drivers in the FHWA simulator drove substantially slower at speeds below 50 km/h (31 mi/h) but drove faster once speeds increased beyond that threshold. Results indicated that speed varies more in the simulator than on the road. One explanation for this is that the simulator provides poorer cues regarding the speed and poorer feedback regarding drivers modulation of speed, leading to greater reliance on the speedometer, poorer speed control, and more variability in speed. This suggests that simulators can provide good estimates of the mean speed but poorer estimates of other elements of the speed distribution. Drivers drove faster and more variably in the minisim and more slowly in the NADS relative to the speeds observed on the road, suggesting that the breadth of distribution may be more indicative of simulator fidelity than the mean speed. The University of Iowa Figure 6. An overview and screen image of the practice driving route. 7

16 Model-Based Transformation of Simulator Data As described in the previous section, behaviors seen in the driving simulator and on the roadway in this research project are generally in agreement, but there are still some mismatches to be addressed. For example, the distribution of speeds observed in the simulator should ideally match speeds observed on the road, but this is not always the case. Simulator characteristics can explain some of the behavior differences, but there are other important characteristics that can lead to differences, including familiarity with the route and individual driver motivations. Predicting On-Road Behavior Although the mean speed observed on the road compared with the simulator was shown to differ slightly in absolute terms during this study, in relative terms the mean speed was similar. 8,20 To solve many design issues, it is important to match simulator and road data in absolute terms. There is a requirement to develop a method to transform simulator data to accurately predict on-road behavior. To meet this requirement, the research team focused on a computational model based on the perceptual, cognitive, and motor-control processes that govern driver speed maintenance. Unlike a regression model, this model uses a theoretical approach to explain the underlying constraints that bound the driver response and provides a way to transform the distribution of speeds observed in the simulator to those observed on the road. This approach offers promise in transforming simulator data to match roadway data and builds on existing models of driver behavior to describe how drivers perceive and respond to road characteristics. Analyzing Models This project also included an analysis of applicable driver models to the roundabout scenarios and integration of these models into a simple speed maintenance model. The research team used data from NADS and the minisim to estimate the parameters of the model these simulators were chosen because of their differing configurations. Past research efforts beyond this project to model drivers speed choice and improve highway safety and capacity have already produced a series of models that predict drivers speed as a function of roadway geometry. 21,22 For over 50 years, this has been an ongoing and active research topic, and yet there is still not a definitive model. 23,24 Most of these existing statistical models summarize drivers speed choice without describing the mechanisms that guide speed selection. 25 Process models, however, complement these statistical models and describe the drivers perceptual, decisionmaking, and motor control processes. 10,26 Process models can describe drivers speed selection in terms of an error-correcting mechanism that strives to minimize the deviation from a desired speed. Desired speed might reflect a driver s ability to steer the vehicle through a curve while maintaining an appropriate distance from the lane boundary, often expressed as the time-toline crossing. 27 Though not part of this research study, one factor that influences this speed choice is traffic in the opposite lane. Without traffic, the research team noted that drivers often cross the centerline to smooth the curve, but most models assume the driver attempts to stay within the lane boundaries. Steering demand increases as the radius of the curvature and lane width decrease and speed increases. Small steering errors at high speed quickly lead a driver toward the lane boundary and forces drivers to slow down to maintain a constant time-toline crossing. This creates an inverse relationship between lateral acceleration and curve radius and can explain why drivers often choose speeds through curves that are less than what might be expected. 12 Analyzing Scenarios The research team focused its analysis on four of the six road segments considered in the earlier simulator data collections. These were the two roundabout sections from Arizona and Maryland. 8

Bulletin Vol. 29, No. 8 : September 2012 Estimating the effect of projected changes in the driving population on collision claim frequency Despite having higher claim frequencies than prime age drivers,

Exclusion (T1) Exclusion (T1) A) This programme is limited to skills training only. The driving activities are practiced until they are carried out perfectly. B) The programme is clearly aimed at sporting

CHAPTER 0 Introduction to Engineering System Dynamics 0.1 INTRODUCTION The objective of an engineering analysis of a dynamic system is prediction of its behaviour or performance. Real dynamic systems are

1 our team e-technologies Solutions, Corp. e-technologies Solutions is a leading North American company, established in West Palm Beach, Florida, which specializes in providing information and tools for

Delineation Section 4 Longitudinal markings The delineation guidelines have been developed to assist in designing and maintaining a quality delineation system. The guidelines are to comprise 19 sections

Knowledge and Data in Road Safety Management - Research at the Center for Road Safety by Andrew Tarko Professor of Civil Engineering Director of Center for Road Safety School of Civil Engineering Purdue

A Comparative Study of Speed Humps, Speed Slots and Speed Cushions LaToya Johnson and A.J. Nedzesky Abstract. The primary objective of this study was to compare speed humps with two newer traffic calming

A Scientific Study "ETAC" European Truck Accident Causation Executive Summary and Recommendations 1 Introduction 1.1 The project and its objectives Currently, only limited statistics are available regarding

Video Conferencing Display System Sizing and Location As video conferencing systems become more widely installed, there are often questions about what size monitors and how many are required. While fixed

Background In early 2014, Transportation Services initiated a review of the Division's design guidelines and standards to move our organization in a direction consistent with the transportation departments

JOURNAL OF VERBAL LEARNING AND VERBAL BEHAVIOR 13, 585-589 (1974) Reconstruction of Automobile Destruction: An Example of the Interaction Between Language and Memory ~ ELIZABETH F. LOFTUS AND JOHN C. PALMER

DOT HS 809 952 January 2006 Technical Report VEHICLE SURVIVABILITY AND TRAVEL MILEAGE SCHEDULES Published By: NHTSA s National Center for Statistics and Analysis This document is available to the public

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration DOT HS 809 360 October 2001 Technical Report This document is available to the public from the National Technical Information

Chapter 3 Track and Wheel Load Testing This chapter describes the track, truck, and testing equipment that were used by the Transportation Technology Center, Inc. (TTCI) for collecting the data that was

AAA AUTOMOTIVE ENGINEERING Evaluation of Blind Spot Monitoring and Blind Spot Intervention Technologies 2014 AAA conducted research on blind-spot monitoring systems in the third quarter of 2014. The research

An exclusive offer for a teen driving presentation which is dynamic, interactive, and a must for teens or college students commuting to and from universities. Driving Safety Solutions Inc. P R ES E N TS

SIGN LEGIBILITY By Andrew Bertucci, United States Sign Council Since 1996, the United States Sign Council (USSC) and its research arm, the United States Sign Council Foundation (USSCF) have funded an extensive

Defensive Driving Course for All Licence Classes Online and Classroom The information provided in this document is applicable to Online and Classroom learning. 1 of 13 Introduction The Requirements for

Defensive Driving: Managing Visibility, Time and Space Motor vehicle travel is the primary means of travel in the United States. With all the benefits that come along with mobility, there are thousands

Sep 24, 2014 Dearborn, Mich. 10 Awesome Driver-Assist Features That Help 2015 Ford F-150 Customers Drive Smarter The all-new Ford F-150, the smartest F-150 yet, is available with the following class-exclusive

Providing drivers with actionable intelligence can minimize accidents, reduce driver claims and increase your bottom line. Equip motorists with the ability to make informed decisions based on reliable,

Paul Deutsch What is a Horizontal Curve? Provides a transition between two tangent lengths of roadway. PI PC PT PC (Point of Curvature at beginning of curve) PI (Point of Intersection of tangents) PT (Point

Cell Phone Distracted Driving is Impaired Driving John Ulczycki National Safety Council What Is Distracted Driving? Measuring The Risks of Distracted Driving Epidemiology research Correlations of emergency

v01-19-11 Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) Introduction The SHRP2 R-23 Guidelines provide a number of possible alternative designs using either rigid of flexible pavements. There is usually not a single

The Impact Of Measuring Driver And Vehicle Behavior Why Businesses are Investing in Fleet Data A Teletrac Whitepaper The Impact Of Measuring Driver And Vehicle Behavior Data has many meanings. Virtually